Options when conquering.

[Naokaukodem]

We definitely need multiple ways of treating conquered cities. Now, there are options but they are too few.

The way we treat population during a processus of conquest should easier or make more difficult some of the different aspects of a given game.

Let's take as example Civ6 : you should be able to choose to reward your soldiers by letting them pillage, rape and murder, to keep their morale high. (plus having a lump of gold out of it for your civ) (but it's now about Civ7, unless "morale" is represented by health, which would be set to max when a city taken, just like Alexander when he takes a city with a wonder)

If you don't pillage, your soldiers's health will remain the same and you will have no gold, but the loyalty of the city will increase and you will have less grievances.

You should also be able to puppet cities like in Civ5, but more explicitely, it is to say that the city would not appear like a part of your territory, rather free city or even why not city states with you as their suzerain. You would stay their suzerain until another civ sends a spy and rigs elections, unless the power is overthrowned.

You could even create whole puppet civs, by attaching each conquest together, with a centralized city as capital, of your choice. That civ would always vote for you or like you in world congress, and give you better deals, representing your companies invading it. (or simply having all of their resources) Your trade route to them would be better also. Your soldiers would heal in their territory as if it was your. (in Civ6 it heals as if in enemy territory if i'm right, it's even worse than in empty land which is silly) You could have a part of their science, or whatever seems not too overpowered. Of course, it could be overthrowned, especially if it has a religion. (>theocracy) It could go off control, and cities war to each others, your included if you are a direct neighbour.

What do you think ?

 

[Brandobaris]

I agree that we need more options and those could def add more depth to conquests.

Razing a city (I guess a more politically correct version of some of those war crimes you've mentioned) could take a number of turns (e.g based on population) during which your units can heal (more quickly) and you could choose to stop at any time. While razing, you generate more grievances and get loyalty penalty and potential aggression from other Civs. If the city is large enough so it rebels before you could fully raze it, you need to capture it again and continue to raze etc so it's won't be that easy to completely destroy a large city. In terms of providing morale to units I think that can be a policy rather than the norm, eg giving your units +1 strength per turn up to say 5 or 10 while a unit is within the borders of a city. That way, the combat bonus gained is offset by the opportunity cost of giving up other military policies and grievances/loyalty penalties.

Additionally, if cities had their own pool of resources & gold, then, after capturing a city, you could choose to transfer some of those resources to other cities effectively granting your empire a quick boost. Things can get tedious though as you'd have to shuffle resources and gold around if you want to, say, buy a unit for example. Also, just before a city is captured, you could transfer all resources to somewhere else and the occupier would get no benefit, which perhaps could be prevented by putting it under siege. Of course, another interesting mechanic could be to use one-off trade routes to transfer goods between cites so if the owner tried to send the resources off to another city, you could try capture that trade convoy unit which can of course be protected by another unit.

Making a city a puppet is certainly a good / fun idea that's also realistic, but I think it needs to work with the existing loyalty mechanics, and also there is little benefit in keeping a city as a puppet in civ 6 (effectively the same as occupation until a deal is made) But if the occupied city generated more loyalty penalty to fully control it and turning it into a puppet (autonomous) could ease that pressure, it may make sense.

Having a puppet civ is an interesting idea, which could work if you're the only sole occupier of that civ's cities but it can get messy, especially if say you're the one who captured the last remaining city but another civ captured all other cities.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Razing citites taking time was in Civ4 (or 5?) and 'puppet civs' (actually Vassals) was in Civ4. I prefer when razing is sudden though, it puts more a sense of violence and warfare. As to Vassals, they worked quite well although they could become again a menace if they built many units which were still their. But with a risk of coup d'état or rebellion, I would say we should be able to choose whether or not they are able to build up a military again. If you forbidden them to build a military again, your vassal could become more vunlerable to enemy attacks, that being against your interests as your vassal would provide you with resources and a part of their science/gold/faith/whatever. Additionnally, the people could revolt more easily if there is no army. A solution to both those problems : putting your own troops in your vassal's territory, but it would cost you as much. (remember that in most Civs we build a small pack of units that will gain much experience and "forget" about military production in a while. (thx upgrades))

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

yeah it's amazing how huge cities just instantly blow up in Civ 6, compared to 5 where they whittle down and you can always sell some buildings for cash or stop the razing.

I agree pillage should certainly be optional: quick money and healing for your units, versus more city loyalty upon capture